Hey Rog,
Welcome to the game....
ROG:
....In this
> case, I would suggest that rather than rewriting history, that we preserve
> the truth of this photographed incident and that we use other statues and
> monuments at the sight to recognize diversity and other social values. The
> site can have social values in ways that don't violate intellectual
values....
RICK:
First up Rog, I'll mail you $20 if you can show me even a single
instance in which anyone involved in this thread has suggested 'rewriting
history'. If you think that's an accurate representation of any position
that has been offered, you obviously haven't been reading very carefully.
I'll extend this $20 offer to all here, asking only that if nobody wins,
people STOP responding to this ridiculous strawman. There is NO value is
responding to points that nobody has made.
Second, the 'truth of the photographed incident' is hardly in danger of
going unpreserved (if that's you're concern). From a brief walk around the
WTC site and some of the surrounding blocks, I determined that the photo has
been quite well preserved on posters, postcards, t-shirts, hats, jackets,
and at least one tapestry (not to mention the hearts and minds of all who
have seen it)... According to YAHOO, the image was downloaded from their
online photogallery hundreds of thousands of times. It has already appeared
in more publications and on more TV shows than can be counted. Given this,
I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that millions and millions
copies of this photo now exist... and like the famous 'Iwo Jima' photo which
the Franklyn photo is clearly reminiscent of, I would expect you'll be
seeing this photo for quite a while, in a number of contexts. You really
think that some statue in Brooklyn could have erased this???
Third, assuming the statue has/had any 'Intellectual Value', you must
first demonstrate why that value is dependant on the racial composition of
the depicted figures. Without this much, it's ludicrous to try and assert
that changing the racial composition reduces that value. Then, you'd have
to show how a change in racial composition reduces/violates/offends the
Intellectual Value more than other changes (ie. scale, the use of models,
the statute was to be in Brooklyn while the photo was taken in Manhattan,
etc....). You'd have to answer these questions even just to show how the
Intellectual Level is relevant to the controversy. And then you'd have to
demonstrate how there are no countervailing Intellectual (or other general
MOQ) canons at work... which is quite a task in itself.
Fourth, did you know that there are numerous historical inaccuracies in
'the Diary of Anne Frank'... Some were accidental, the
playwrights/filmmakers just flubbed some facts. Some were on purpose (the
authors altered some facts in order to better convey the messages and tell a
story). Would anybody here argue that the 'Intellectual Value' of these
works was somehow impeded by these changes? If you just apply the MOQ canon
in question indiscriminately, you'll yield absurd results like.... the film
'diary of Anne Frank' which has taught millions about the suffering of a
people and hope under the most horrendous circumstances imaginable was
immoral because it subverted historical accuracy in favor of other values.
Like any other law or rule, the canon in question serves a purpose;
Logically, it should only be applied in cases where that purpose is
satisfied by the canon's application.
ROG:
> Please note that the focus of this thread is the MOQ's effectiveness as a
> moral guide. The fireman statue is just a case in point.
RICK:
But Rog, we HAVE been discussing the MOQ's effectiveness as a moral
guide. The point here is that MOQ is of questionable value when applied to
everyday moral questions like the statue because any predetermined
conclusion can be reached by simply couching one's terms in the language of
levels that produce the desired outcome.
If you want the statue to be immoral you call it 'an historically
inaccurate representation of a photograph'. If you want it to be moral you
call it 'an historically accurate representation of a multi-racial fire
department, partially modeled on a photo'. Neither one is these
DESCRIPTIONS can be called 'truth'. Anyone who's read Pirsig's books should
know this.
ROG:
Look for solutions that are win/win, not win/lose. They aren't always
possible to find, but where possible, they can help point the way to higher
quality.
RICK:
You say this, but you ignore the fact that I have presented you with the
win/win solution. If you describe the statue as a 'an historically accurate
representation of a multi-racial fire department, partially modeled on a
famous photo' then even the most anal historians couldn't suggest that
Intellect is violated (a WIN for Intellect) and Society is left
unconstrained to choose the statue that it believes to be the best vehicle
for whatever values it seeks to embody (a WIN for Society).
thank you for playing,
rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:34 BST